Drawing a Conclusion Author(s): Jeffrey Kipnis Source: Perspecta, Vol. 22, Paradigms of Architecture (1986), pp.

94-99 Published by: The MIT Press on behalf of Perspecta. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1567095 Accessed: 14/11/2008 14:21
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Perspecta.

http://www.jstor.org

94

Kipnis Drawinga ConclusionJeffrey

is The object of architectural knowledge architecture itself, as it has been historicallyconstituted.It does not consist of abstract functions, but of concreteforms. Alan Colquhoun, Criticism, Essaysin Architectural Books Oppositions . . . we believe that any vital and relevantarchitecturerelies on the prior development theory. of editorial Autonomous to Fromthe introductory Architecture, The Harvard Architecture Review,v. 3

95

to we In the fieldof architecture havetodaybecomeaccustomed two knowl"itself"andarchitectural distinctendeavors-architecture - takingfor granted difference the relationship between and the edge the two. Architecture (itself), it seems, is the act, the art, the event in it thatmanifestsa history; is the thingitself,occurring plastic forms":drawings, and materials "concrete models,buildings,andthe on like. Architectural -theory, history, knowledge, theotherhand the andso on-consists of the examinations, investigacommentary, fromthe outsidelookingin. This the tions of architecture, analyses fromthe workis concerned with, andthusin thefield, yet separate of functions,is manifest consisting abstract thingitself. Knowledge, (at least)in words,in writing.

This informal briefis submitted of a simplyto introduce direction the betweenthe theory inquirythatmakesthematic relationship of architecture architecture and itself. We areinterested examining in the "self-evident" distinctions enable(orcause)us to "takefor that the the in between two;andinterested why these granted" difference self-evidencies manifest hierarchy the theory-architecture a in relationarchitecture" shipsuchthat"anyvitalandrelevant mightrely "on the of priordevelopment theory." In the firstof the introductory uses quotations, Colquhoun the criterion materiality identifythe difference of to betweenarchitecture itself andtheory(architectural "It knowledge): does not consistof abstract but forms."Thisdistinction between functions, of concrete the abstract the concrete example,between"curvature" and and (for "a curve")seemsobvious,evident It to beyondquestion. appears boil to down, quitenaturally, whatis seen (thephysical),andwhatis aboutwhatis seen (themental).Thereis no morenecessary thought for circumstance investigation everything "appears than that quite We to the of naturally." will findreason scrutinize "naturalness" this in difference materiality. Likeits nearest modern comes the relative,"theater," word"theory" to us fromGreekorigins(theoros,"spectator," fromthea, "a viewwith seeing.Thisrootlinksit witha host of words ing") associated affiliated withmentality haveassociations that with sight, currently "insight,""speculate," suchas "suspect," "expect,""contemplate," "consider" "to (fromLatinconsiderare, observethe starscarefully"), to and Of "discover," "reflect." coursewe mustbe reluctant rely on but etymological analysisas anything intriguing suggestion,innuis endo;afterall, the originof "salary" salt, as we all know,andwe wouldnot takekindlyto an erudite employer tryingto payus our with "wages"wouldbe even (the salaryetymologically situation sincewe have worse,its originbeing"to promise" Nevertheless, !). divided"theory" fromarchitecture (itself) on the "natutemporarily ral" basisof the mentalfromthephysical,thisphysicality implicitin our language the mentalis intriguing foreshadows direction of and the of ourinquiry. theorists to haveturned theirattention analyzingthe Recentlyliterary and in discourse. figurative rhetorical language criticalandtheoretical The problem theseanalysts differences generpose-what self-evident ate the distinction betweenliterary criticalwriting? is similarto and the one under discussion here.Thedifference thattheyareconcerned is withone formof writing relation another, in whilewe areconcerned to with one formof writingin relation something to physical,something otherthanwriting- or so it seems.Remarkably, they scrutinize as discourse withthe sameanalytic tools thathavebeenused with successon literature, findno substantive distinction. Critical they and on writing,philosophy, theory,all depend preciselythe same

96

devicesso evidentin, andso important literature: to, figurative andso on. The distinction metaphor, metonomy, anthropomorphism, betweenthe two-that is, the distinction betweentruthandfiction- restssolely in thereader's A response. reader privileges,less thanconsciously, certain withthe authority of figurative language truthfulness certain and with of persuasions the authority knowledge. This situation beara closerlook whenwe turnto the relationship will betweenarchitecture theory. and It is mostimportant thispoint,however, suggestthatall rhetoriat to cal figuresconstitute thingreferring a different one to thing.The to suggestionin the etymologythata certain visibilityis congenital is of mentality strengthened this inescapable by dependence all theory on figuresof the thing,on the "visible"object.All arguments depend on invokingobjectsto be movedaround, Using analytic perused. we "lookinto"anargument's its "tools," "foundations," "grounding." Wedetermine whether is "substantial" "insubstantial," it or "mate" We rial"or "immaterial." "see"if it is "deep"or "shallow. We "reflect" how well theexamples on "reflect" argument, we the and "find"howmuch"lighttheyshedon"theargument. first"make" We and and arguments "discover" principles then"build"theoriesfrom these. In short,an "abstract function" a kindof "concrete is form";it is architecture provides that of manyof the metaphors "objectivity" thatenabletheory.It almostseemsthatwe are"drawing conclua sion," thata vitalandrelevant theoryrelieson thepriordevelopment 97 of architecture. thatis almostright- almost. And In orderto finishour"drawing" bringit to a "conclusion," and we shouldfirstlook at the material architecture, "concrete of the form," if for no otherreasonthanto confirm visibilityof its physical the presence.Afterall, whenwe havethe objectin frontof oureyes- the "door,"the "loggia,"the "villa,"the"modern skyscraper" we do not rely on any figurative to metaphor informus of whatwe are a Is seeing. Oris the "thing"we are"seeing"already metaphor? the "doorness" a physicaldoornot actually response,a readingof of a thatconcreteform'srelation otherforms?Consequently to mustwe not concludethatthereis no suchthingas a doorbutonly "doorness" written form,constituted relations,by in itself, a metaphor by Thereis nothing more"doorful" differences? abouta "concrete" door in its relation a "concrete" or to other"concrete to wall doors"than the doorfulness the "doorwhichopenswiththe key to understandof ing," the abstract conceptof doornamed theword"door." by One mighttry to rescuea self-evident distinction betweenthe physical doorandthe word"door"by arguing thephysicaldooris "an that exampleof a door,"whiletheword"door"is thenameof an abstract betweenan "example" a and conceptof door.Butthisdifference "name"simplyreiterates difference the betweenthephysicalandthe mentalthatseemsto be fallingapart beforeourvery eyes. A name,

one mighttry to argue,is a mental object,it "signs";an exampleis a physicalobject,it "shows."Buta name,a word,is as physicalas an " of Are not "door,"" ," anda "realdoor"all pictures doors- thatis, In of of metaphoric pictures the metaphor "doorness"? short,is not a function? concreteforma kindof abstract are functions kinds a that Havingreached pointof contending abstract formsarekindsof abstract of concreteformsandconcrete functions, betweenthe physicalandmental can it be still saidthatthe distinction that Can is really"natural," reallyself-evident? a distinction does not existbe "natural"? itself The distinction betweentheoryandarchitecture echoesthe and of Cartesian separation mind(mental) body (physical).Cartesian bases that and separations ostensiblyidentifyneutral equivalent and completelypartition definea field-that is, the verticaland a axes defining Euclidean horizontal plane.But at the sametime is violationof thatneutrality impliedin suchfiguresof speechas "backward civilization," "mindovermatter,"" higherintelligence," and "lowerformsof life." The sourceof theseviolationsis precisely that between the sourceof the relationship theoryandarchitecture we -eminent theorydistinct takefor granted from,butgoverning,vital itself. architecture betweenthe mental distinction that Since we haveargued the accepted that we andthephysicalhasno substance, mustconclude thepresumed as is of "naturalness" this separation so obviousandtranscendent to that It be immunefromneedof justification. suggestsitself therefore the a the dichotomy represents need, a desirefor the relationships distinction generates. task does not allowfor the arduous of pursuing This shortreflection A it blindness engenders. look at thatdesireandthe symptomatic mindsimilarly another governsa body itself field in whichan eminent In in to may suggestthe ground be covered sucha pursuit. Freudian of arena the "higher" of mentality the superego, theorythe eminent of discourseof communality, civilization-thatis, of relationshipsan also governs(fromsuper, "above") id, an it in thephysicalbody of and itself. The architecture rhetoric the Freudian theoryof the to identical the one in the theory-architecture psyche, with a blindness bothspeakto the samedesirefor whichthe theorycannot dichotomy, account(thoughit professesto be the theoryof desires),whichit can only serve. In light of this discussion,a familiar exampleof theorypreceding -essentialist theoryas leadingto modernarchitecturearchitecture and theories aesthetics,minimalism, Essentialist maybe reconsidered. of for all architecture, structuralism, account theprimacy a geometric
example, "loop" is as upside down as an upside down door itself.

98

an architecture "essential" of form.Butwhatdimension "miniwas mal" in minimalism? Whattwo elements wereso excellentlyclose thattheirdifference couldbe proclaimed minimal? Whatquantity, whatlengthcouldbe so wretched the leastof it was the ideal? that Essentialist tentative answer? movement fromessence? theory's Any is essentialaboutgeometric form?If the paradigmatic What,then, hut enclosedvolumein one analysis, primitive is "closeto" a "pure" one systemof weightsandmeasures, it not, in its primitiveness, is "closeto" a "purity" no-architecture another, of in wheredistance is measured termsof movement in frompure,essentialnature? The minimalism fromno-shelter shelter to couldthenbe the least intervention possible,a minimal naturalism. in thatsystemof weights, And as mental"idealization" nature, of "pure"geometry, an entirely wouldbe the mostdistant from"pure"physical possiblemetaphor nature itself. Minimalism becomesa maximalism sorts.Rather of thanfindingtheorypreceding vitalarchitecture, we findis a a what and of matrix,a web of architectural literary metaphors, writingin formandlanguage,devoted persuading to both simultaneously the of of priority the mentalandthe integrity the physical.Ourprelimithat article"is as then,is the conclusion a "theoretical narydrawing, mucha "pieceof architecture itself" as an architectural objectitself is an articleof discourse,of theory.Which,strictlyspeaking,amounts to sayingthatthereis no "theory architecture" an "architecof nor tureitself."
99